July 27, 2017

And now something (non-North Korean nuclear tipped submarine launched missile) to worry about, in future:"Amateur 'biohackers' who tinker with the genetic make-up of living
organisms could develop new types of biological weapons, a leading academic has
warned.

Professor John Parrington, a molecular biologist at Oxford University,
claims cheap gene editing tools are becoming widely available around the world.

This is giving DIY scientists the chance to genetically alter organisms
like bacteria and yeast to give them properties not seen in nature...."

July 26, 2017

China and Russia have been cementing their unholy naval
alliance with regular exercises. The live fire “Joint Sea 2017” July 22 to July 28, is the latest. It is being held
far from China, in the Baltic Sea near European Russia. See good Youtube about how Baltic nations are worried.The regular Joint Sea
exercises have been held since 2012 and mark the eclipse of Russia as a top
five conventional naval power but China’s rise as the number two conventional naval power (neck and neck with Japan). Russia’s possession of the second largest
fleet of nuclear submarines complicates relative strength measurements a bit.

Throughout the Joint Sea Exercises Russia has only been able to deploy very small or very old vessels (of uncertain engine
reliability). Large tugboats therefore feature large in Russian flotillas.

Type 052D destroyer Hefei 合肥 (DDG-174). It is the third 052D built, commissioned December 2015, in China’s South Sea Fleet. Its AESA radar and 64 cell VLS may make it almost as effective as a US Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

---

Type 054A multi-role frigate Yuncheng运城, No. 546 (sister ship above). At 4,000 tons (with a 32 cell VLS, 8 Harpoon like ASM, ASW torpedos and ASROC launchers) it is of the size and armament that the US Navy can return to - after the abortive US LCS program.

---

And Type 903 replenishment
ship Lomahu. 骆马湖, No. 964, commissioned July
2016 based at South Sea Fleet (sister ship above). At 23,000 tons it is a useful size for a flotilla. (photo courtesy Coatepeque at Chinese Defense Blog).

So the exercises are very regular. It is is not yet clear whether pro-Russian Trump will bother to Tweet-Churchillian* about this symptom of Chinese-Russian naval alliance.* Never in the course of New York history have so many plebs payed out so much to so many Trophy** trading Billionaires.** the latest super model trade-in Trophy is crucial to America's Putin-Trump-Putin era.

COMMENTUnfortunately for Russia it did not emulate America's successful strategy of evolutionary scheduling and longer build runs. Russia seems to be maintaining its inefficient and expensive submarine building programs by publicising the 3 submarine program currently codenamed "Husky".Russia only commissioned the lead Borey/Borei SSBN and Yasen class SSN/SSGN in 2013 - see here and here respectively. This means the first Husky SSBN, SSN and SSGN might not be commissioned for 30 years, in 2047. Such an early announcement of the Husky concepts may owe more to the hoped for career continuity of submarines design bureaus and junior-middle ranking designers than timely planning schedules.Russia is also repeating its build-only-a-few-subs tradition rather than the US and Japanese longer build, gradual evolution approach. Only 8 Boreys (right sidebar) and 6 to 10 (right sidebar) Yasens will be built. Small batches loses economies of scale. However, Russia does seem to be following the sound US strategy of placing vertical missile launch plugs onto a SSN concept, in order to create the SSGN concept. The SSBN will involve more extensive changes with a long plug and bigger draught missile compartment hump. This will be needes to accommodate the SSBN's longer (or is that taller) compartment of at least 12.1m for Bulava missiles .With a 3 type semi-common submarine program might Russia fall into some of the structural and weight problems of the 3 type F-35 program? The F-35s have long lost their cost cutting commonality "dividends". The F-35s have steadily become dissimilar due to different structure and load requirements (optimistically planned in 3 F-35 variants that would share 80% of their parts. However, by April 2017 the variants were sharing at most 20% common design). May much larger Husky SSBNs have far different stealth characteristics (eg. larger pressure hull dimensions and water flow (hydrodynamic noise) characterisks than the smaller SSNs? In the 1980s upscaling a smaller Swedish submarine design for the Collins' design caused marked hydrodynamic noise problems. This likely drop in common design percentage may also impact US plans that assume Columbia-class SSBNs can adopt many parts and solutions of the Virginia-class.Russia could claim it has much shorter production runs than the US because Russia's defence budget is now just about one-ninth that of the US. But one could question the lack of an evolutionary continuous build.Oh well, what's bad for Russia is probably good for Western democracies (though the Trump clan would disagree).

The commonality cost/efficiency "dividend" of the 3 Huskies is even more ambitious than the 2 class Virginia-Columbia dividend. The Columbia-class (aka Ohio replacement) SSBN is to carry many of the external and internal characteristics of the Virginia. But the Virginia structure laid down in 1999 may be very different from than engineering solutions desired in 2021, when the first Columbia is due to be laid down.

July 21, 2017

In the last 24 hours India's Deccan Herald and other quality Indian news outlets have carried an important Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) announcement. My comments are in [...] brackets.India's MoD has issued the long anticipated request for information (RFI) to 6 submarine suppliers to participate in the construction of 6 advanced conventional diesel-electric submarines under the Project-75I (I for India). This will be a $9.5 Billion (so far) project. Companies invited, via the RFI, to provide information are:- France's Naval Group (formerly DCNS)- Russia's Rosoboronexport- Spain's Navantia- Sweden's Saab- Germany's TKMS, and- Japan's MHI (which would include KHI).The RFI is just the beginning of a lengthy selection process [1] that may take 5 years till a winner is chosen, then another 5 years to commission the first sub. The winner will need to:- partner with an Indian company, and- build the submarines in India [Australia has similar rules] - [The winner will need to facilitate provision of air independent propulsion (AIP). Long discussed is the winner being prepared to share the AIP technology with India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)]- [also long discussed as a requirement is the fitting of a vertical launch systems (VLS) or at least the ability to torpedo tube launch long range, land attack, cruise missiles]For more information see the WHOLE DECCAN HERALD article.FURTHER COMMENT India has for over a decade been conscious that its strategic competitors have been exceeding India's very slow submarine production (and purchasing) rate.China has produced dozens of submarines in the last two decades with increasing numbers featuring the advantage of AIP. India has no AIP conventional submarines and India's submarines are mostly of less stealthy, old, designs.Pakistan already has 3 AIP submarines and has ordered 8 submarines designed by China. These 8 will likely have AIP fitted or retrofitted.It is not yet clear whether India wants average sized submarines (about 1,900 tonnes submerged) or is thinking of a larger, more capable, design.

Risk P-75I Technology May Flow to Russia

Some RFI invitees may be worried about India's close high tech & sensitive submarine
relationship with Russia. Meaning there is a perceived risk that India may
transfer some P-75I tech to Russia (eg. AIP & pressure hull formulas?). RFI invitees may therefore limit the submarine technology they build into their submarine proposals to India.

Then Russia may on-transfer tech secrets to China. This is
noting Russia likely transferred nuclear sub technology and certainly Kilos to
China in the past. China increasingly has the kind of money to attract
"Russian" high defence tech.

The depth of Indo-Russian submarine relations can be seen in Russia taking
the unusual path of:

July 20, 2017

As Russia's democratically re-elected Leader for Life,
Putin, can take the long view, developing long term projects. Putin’s triumphant project is Trump. Putin is at heart a jokester, really.

Trump is Putin's great Agent of Disruption. Even better than an Agent of Influence.Russia did its utmost to boost Trump's electoral prospects. Russia is still nurturing Trump's disruptive tendencies.Trump is continually disrupting the US government, the nation and international reputation.

July 19, 2017

This article follow comments by special Netherlands' correspondent Kevin on July 17, 2017, below Submarine Matters articleDutch Submarine Talks With
TKMS & Kockums, not with DCNS of March 2, 2017.

The Netherlands' process to decide on a Walrus
replacement submarine has been slowed down by the Dutch general election
of March 15, 2017. The election result has been a hung parliament of parties
unable to form a stable decision making coalition.

This means delays in parliament approving a large
expensive (estimated at 2.5 Billion euros initial costs) new submarine program.

All of these functions cannot be performed by unmanned
platforms – very obviously not carriage and deployment of special forces.

With the first
of the Walruses due to be retired in 2025 there is increasing pressure to
research, decide on and order a new submarine class. Consultation with Australia, Germany,
Norway and Sweden is important, but difficult.

Information following
the March 2017 election is that some new parliamentarians (in the parliamentary committee hearings at Troelstra
Hall) are less familiar with submarine issues. Also some are less than enthusiastic about ordering new submarines. This is slowing down
decision making.

Much more discussion about submarines and agreement is needed. Salima Belhaj (scroll a third down) of the Democrats 66 sees a need for submarines but they should definitely not be nuclear armed. [As in Australia most Dutch parliamentarians would oppose nuclear weapons in their submarines].

With a deliver first submarine intention in the mid 2020s
the Netherlands has even more issues to decide than Australia (deliver
submarines by the early 2030s). The Netherlands decision makers have not even reached
consensus on a submarine size or chosen a submarine designer or builder. All
this suggests that the Netherlands may take several more years than currently
expected to start building submarines.

Three out of four of the Netherlands' Walrus submarines undergoing maintenance on ship stands. The photo may indicate how limited and congested shipbuilding space is in the Netherlands. Also the situation of only one Walrus being available may become standard as the Walrus' reach their use by date. (Photo courtesy Willem Severins)

July 17, 2017

ARTICLESThe Guardian (Australian edition) July 17, 2017 and The Canberra Times, July 15, 2017 have reported that:Australia's Defence Industry Minister, Christopher Pyne, has voiced enthusiasm about Australia becoming a major weapons exporter - perhaps on the scale of UK, French and German exports (see Table below). As Pyne mainly promotes shipbuilding from South Australia this is likely what he is talking about.COMMENTMajor impediments to Pyne Vision are:
- Australia does not have an industrial base or equipment research sector large enough to develop major weapon systems
- put another way Australia does not enjoy the economies of scale to sell a high volume of weapons
to the Australian domestic market that would make unit prices competitive or lower for foreign
customers

- Australia does not have the necessary labour efficiencies or productivity to compete against existing major arms exporters (think South Korea and Spain for surface ships). Also Singapore is highly efficient in labour productivity making it unlikely to buy from Australia.
- Australia does not have the major advantage of being an established weapons supplier with an established sales structure in other countries. This is unlike all the exporters listed in the Table below (US, Russia, Germany, China, France etc)
- Australia does not have the corporate financial depth to sell weapons at below market prices in order to secure contracts - then recoup revenue over the long term (eg. by charging higher for maintenance and spare parts, etc)
- Australia is constrained by licences and intellectual property being held by major exporters to Australia (eg. US, Spain, UK and for the future submarine France.
- Australia is not geographically positioned well to sell weapons to paying regional allies (except for New Zealand). NOT to impoverished Pacific Islands, PNG, East Timor etc.So what is Pyne really talking about?New Zealand. It is the only country Australia has built major weapons system for, and sold those weapons to. But New Zealand is still a very small customer. The largest orders to NZ over the last 3 decades have been 2 Anzac-class frigates in the 1990s and 2 Protector-class OPVs in the 2000s. Offsets. Australia is partly justifying the large amounts of taxpayer money it is spending on F-35As by claiming that the much smaller scale Australian content and "sales" of some F-35 components will be a victory for Australian industry Pyne appears to focus most of his attention to ship and submarine building in Adelaide. It is highly unlikely that Australia could build and export Future Frigates, Futures Submarines or OPVs, to foreign countries. This is mainly because those countries that designed and hold the intellectual property rights to those weapons system would not want to lose business to artificially created Australian reselling or competition. Pyne's claims of a potential export benefits of Australian built weapons can mainly be seen as ways to divert criticism of the high prices Australia will be spending on F-35s, ships and submarines over the next 20 years. Pyne wants to maintain Australia's major policy direction - that is spending on the weapons sector should not be questioned in the way spending on the less deserving health, education, welfare, infrastructure and energy sectors is being questioned.Pyne's words do not yecertify that he is out of touch with the realities of weapons exports.

Australia has long been geared to be a major weapons importer making it difficult for Australia to become a major weapons developer and exporter. Source is the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database via The
Canberra Times.

July 14, 2017

An Anonymous comment
on 1 July 2017 12:35 AM has prompted me to consider the issue of South Korea building
a nuclear tipped ballistic missile capability.

South Korea has laid down its third KSS-III
(also see)
of 3,000+ ton conventional attack submarines (SSKs) to carry 6 cruise or
ballistic missiles. If the KSS-IIIs carry ballistic missiles they can be
reclassified conventionally propelled ballistic missile submarines (SSBs).

It is unknown whether the missiles will be in separate vertical
launch tubes along the hull or be in one more flexible Vertical Multi-Purpose
Lock. Confusingly the KSS-III can also be called KSS3, Jang Bogo-III or perhaps Chang
Bogo-III.

The ballistic missile to be carried in the early 2020s may be the Hyunmoo-2B with a range of 500km and warhead/payload
of 500kg. 500km may be more a political minimum estimate signalling China or
the China-North Korea border areas are not targets.

- 1,000 km range Tomahawk like Hyunmoo-3 cruise missiles that could make
China a target.

North Korea has little to worry about South Korea missiles
that only have conventional explosive warheads. Kim could be protected in a deep bunker.

If there are rumours or an actual South Korean nuclear
weapons program then South Korea could utilise independent nuclear deterrence – something North
Korea will respect.

If Trump is no longer interested in extended US nuclear deterrence then Australia should also contemplate building an independent nuclear deterrent.

The map above indicates how close some North Korean nuclear facilities are to the Chinese border, particularly Yongjo-ri uranium enrichment site and Hyesan nuclear research site. If either site were hit with South Korean (SK) or US conventional explosives this may spill radioactive fragments from the facilities onto Chinese soil. This would bring China into any conflict. Use of US or future SK nuclear weapons on those sites would even more likely damage and antagonise China. (Map courtesy The Guardian).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This second map (courtesy The Economist) illustrates how constricted the waters are for South Korean (SK) submarines. Any SK cruise or ballistic missile submarines might be easily monitored by Chinese or North Korean submarines or undersea sensor/SOSUS arrays as the SK submarines leave port or move into vulnerable near seas (Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea or East China Sea) for missile launches.

Relatively distant Western Pacific waters would be safer but that may mean SK submarines need missiles of 2,000 km range - something likely unachievable now - unless Tomahawks from the US are used.

July 12, 2017

Images of ASC Pty Ltd as seen in the white pages of the phonebook. ASC has been leaning more to shipbuilding (rather than submarine building) for years. Therefore should ASC now call itself "Australian Shipbuilding Corporation" instead of "...Submarine Building". Perhaps change the name when ASC breaks into the 3 new companies?
---

Hi Donors

I've just emailed Submarine Matters July 2017 Donor Report: Naval Group To Handle Whole Submarine Build (So Far)out to you, as a WORD attachment. Please check your spam bin if you don't see it in your IN box.

Leadin to report:

Naval Group (formerly DCNS) is not rushing into associating itself with an Australian partner – even ASC (what was more commonly called “Australian Submarine Corporation”). Submarine building is too complex for politicians to simplify. Promises by politicians on ship and submarine building are temporary and maximised just before Elections.

July 10, 2017

Joseph Fitsanakis for Intelnews, July 10, 2017, has authored an article marking the 32nd anniversary of an act of state terrorism (terrorism by a state). This was when French spies blew up a Greenpeace ship in the main harbour of a democratic, Western country, in 1985.INTELNEWS ARTICLE

"French spy who infiltrated the environmentalist group Greenpeace
and in 1985 helped bomb the organization’s flagship, the Rainbow Warrior [a bomb that sunk Rainbow Warrior and killed Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira], has
spoken to the media for the first time..."

Three other DGSE agents providing support for the
Operation (Chief Petty Officer Roland Verge, Petty Officer Bartelo and Petty
Officer Gérard Andries) sailed to New Zealand on the yacht Ouvéa.

Those three were arrested by Australian police on Norfolk
Island, an Australian possession located between Australia and New Zealand. Not
wanting to draw French anger Australia quickly decided to release the three
French agents.

A few days after their release the three agents were
picked up by the French nuclear propelled attack submarine Rubis. Rubis had sailed half way round the world from France specifically to be available
as an extraction asset for the Sink Rainbow Warrior Operation.

It is odd, but familiar, how deluded military based
intelligence agencies, like DGSE, can get. The delusion is apparent in the last paragraph of the Intelnews article when the female French agent, Christine Cabon, rationalised why it was OK with her to bomb a peaceful Western country. She says the “job was what it was”, and [she] noted that “all military people, who serve their country, often find themselves in situations that they have not wished for”. Basically she's claiming she was just following orders - a defense used and discredited at Nuremberg.

The small trawler sized ship Rainbow Warrior (photo courtesy Greenpeace) was sunk in Auckland Harbour, New Zealand, in 1985, by a timebomb smuggled into New Zealand by France's external intelligence agency DGSE. An unsubtle piece of state-based terrorism which left this hole in the hull (below) - sinking the ship and killing Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira.

"When a Russian naval task force appeared to our north at the
time of the Brisbane G20, I was told that neither of our two deployed
submarines could shadow it. They simply
couldn’t get there in time.

It was a
stark reminder of the limitations of a strategic deterrent comprising just six
conventional submarines of which two are in deep maintenance, two are in
training, with only two available at any one time – and limited by an
underwater cruising speed of just 10 knots.

...The whole
point of the next submarine acquisition was to avoid the problems of the
Collins – to find the submarine that could be brought swiftly into service with
the least possible modifications – but what we have done so far risks an exact
repetition.

We’ve based
our proposed sub on an existing design but one that will need to be so
extensively reworked that it’s effectively a brand new submarine and our
intention is to build it entirely in Australia.

...A unique
Australian boat is precisely what we wanted to avoid; but it’s exactly what we
now face because of our insistence on a submarine that as well as being large,
and long-range, was also conventionally powered.

The
competitive evaluation process conclusively showed that there’s no such thing
currently in existence. All the
submarines on which the bids were based are excellent for their countries’
needs – but none, it seems, for ours.

The Japanese
sub lacked range.

The German
sub lacked size.

And the
French sub lacked conventional power.

But instead
of changing what we wanted, we’ve decided – again – to bring an orphan
submarine into being.

Instead of
taking a small Swedish submarine designed for the Baltic and seeking to double
its size and range to make it suitable for the Pacific – as with the Collins –
this time we’re proposing to take a French nuclear submarine and completely
redesign it to work with conventional propulsion.

...The resulting
sub will have less power, less range, less speed and less capability than the
existing submarine on which it’s based and it will come into service about a
decade later than would be optimal at a time when strategic circumstances are
changing against us.

Hence the
basic question: why should we spend years designing a sub that’s inferior to
one we could potentially have now?

...a conventional sub takes at least a
fortnight to go from Australia to the South China Sea through which passes more
than 50 per cent of our trade.

...I stress: I
do not want to interrupt the process of acquiring new submarines given that it
had languished for so long.

The design
process with DCNS should continue and so should the build if that remains our
fully considered assessment of what’s best."

Next week Submarine Matters will republish Abbott's comments on the need for Australia to acquire "regionally superior" NUCLEAR attack submarines.

July 5, 2017

It is not diesel reformer or methanol reformer fuel cell (FC)/air independent propulsion (AIP) that will be the next revolutionary advance in conventional submarine propulsion. Lithium-ion batteries will be the next big advance.

The major test will be the first country to fully adopt LIBs for submarine. That country will be Japan, which may launch the first LIBs submarine (27SS First Soryu Mk. 2) this year or next year and then commission it in 2020 or 2021.

If there are no problems with Japanese LIBs for 5 years of operation South Korea and China (secretly) may then launch LIBs submarines in the mid 2020s. Naval Group (formerly DCNS), TKMS and Russia might later (in the late 2020s) launch LIBs submarines.

ANONYMOUSES TABLE

It is important to keep track of current lead-acid batteries (LABs) and LIBs suppliers. To do this Anonymous has revised the following Table (last published on May 18, 2017) with all the new entries, including new endnotes, marked in this highlight.

[1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160915005029/en/Top-5-Vendors-Global-Submarine-Battery-MarketEnerSys, EverExceed , Exide Technology, HBL Power Systems Ltd., and Sunlight Systems are the major lead-acid battery (LABs) vendors in the market. Companies, such as GS Yuasa, Saft, Kokam, Arotech, and Toshiba, are aggressively developing Li-ion batteries for submarines and investing in R&D to reduce the cost and match the LAB specifications for the submarines. The report also states countries, such as Japan, China, and Russia, are focusing on the Li-ion battery technology for the submarines. Russia is also planning to develop Li-ion battery technology for Kalina submarines in collaboration with China.

HBL is the largest defence battery manufacturer in India. All the
products have been designed, developed and manufactured based on in-house
technology. The Company supplies batteries for a wide range of applications -
fighter aircrafts, helicopters, transport aircraft, submarine propulsion, light
weight and heavy weight torpedoes, battle tanks, missiles and artillery fuzes
among others.The Company has recently secured approval for Kilo class submarine
battery and approval process for Scorpene class submarine is at an advanced
stage of completion.

For many years, we had been asked why HBL did not make Lithium Ion
batteries. We have now initiated a plan to manufacture prismatic Lithium Ion
cells and batteries for specialized applications - not for consumer products.
The project is likely to be implemented in the near term.

The design and development of more than 25 different cell types
and the delivery of 60 battery shipsets to navies worldwide are the strongest
evidences for our expertise and cumulative experience in the submarine battery
sector. Indicatively, we have manufactured submarine batteries for: Greece,
Italy, Egypt, Germany, Fance, Ukraine, Pakistan, Peru, Sweden, Poland, South
Africa, Portugal, Korea, Netherlands, Equador

The most commonly lithium batteries used are manufactured based on
Lithium Sulfur Dioxide (LiSO2) and Lithium-Ion technology. More specifically,
LiSO2 batteries are constructed of a Lithium (Li) anode, a Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
cathode and their electrolyte is made of Acetonitrile in combination with
Lithium Bromide.

EnerSys is the leading global supplier of lithium-ion batteries
for space applications where space heritage, innovation, and a proven delivery
track record come together to produce market-leading batteries.

"In December 2014, TsKB Rubin completed the research
work" Kalina-Navy "as a result of which the advanced design of a
promising multipurpose non-nuclear submarine with air-independent power plant
(VNEU) and a lithium-ion battery (LIAB) was executed in accordance with the
tactical and technical task of the Russian Defense Ministry," said Shlemov.

In April [2017], a seminar-presentation of developments and
products of SAFT (France) under the name "Lithium-ion power systems for
large underwater vehicles" was held at the St. Petersburg State Maritime
Technical University. From the Russian side, specialists from a number of
interested organizations took part in the seminar. From the French side
SAFT representatives: Bertrand Dotfey, Sales Director, Cosmos and
Defensive Systems Division; and Alain Coadou, Manager, New Defensive Systems, made a presentation.

Safety is paramount in the demanding
technological environment of the submarine. ATLAS ELEKTRONIK and ALSE have
succeeded in passing all tests based on the demanding safety standards of the
German Navy needed to achieve certification and clearance for use on submarines
of its new Lithium Iron Phosphate rechargeable battery. This was achieved by a
deliberate choice for the safest Lithium Ion type battery chemistry available,
Lithium Iron Phosphate, and a unique dedicated battery cell design by ALSE that
achieves primary safety. This ALSE battery cell is then integrated by ATLAS
into the exercise battery. A battery whose cells conform to primary safety
standard does not contain any risks that necessitate extensive secondary safety
measures. This ensures a maximum of safety beyond that of the legacy battery
system and other offerings on the market.

TKMS has taken a major
step in its development. With the acquisition of ATLAS ELEKTRONIK by TKMS this combines their strengths and offers their
customers the full range of solutions from a single source.

TKMS adopting the systems of ATLAS ELEKTRONIK suggests TKMS will adopts LIBs too.By Anonymous (with a few comments from Pete)

Submarine Matters

Director, Submarine Matters International. I analyse international trends, technical and political - mainly on submarines, sometimes on surface ships, aircraft and missiles. This website started in 2007. I have a Masters Degree (International Relations) High Distinction average. The best way to navigate this site is to put a keyword in the search box top left corner.